There are no official or statements in the Orthodox church on the exact way the 'change' occurs in the species at the Consecration.The Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem (XVII century) adopts the same aristotelian concepts of the Latin dogma of transsubstantiation, such as "substance" and "accidents", and also translates "transsubstantiation" as literally as possible with a constructed word, "metaousia". It must be said that the Council of Jerusalem is regarded as authoritative but not infallible in its definitions, i.e. it may contain errors such as imprecise formulas to define dogmas because of an exaggerated Latin influence on the assembly, due to the fact that most bishops and theologians present at the synod had been educated in Western (and thus Catholic) schools and seminaries. Anyway, even in that case, the word 'substance' has more of a 'spiritual/mystical' feeling then its Latin counterpart "substantia". That said, AFAIK, consubstantiation is not an official statement on faith in the Real Presence. What an Orthodox Christian should acknowledge is that we receive bread and wine as true Body and true Blood of Christ, but the manner of this change (called 'metabole') is indeed unknown. This sense of 'mystery' is essential to the Orthodox faith, in fact all sacraments are called 'Mysteries'. I sincerely don't know how consubstantiation could be regarded as an Orthodox doctrine, since Lutheran terminology on this belief implies a mixture of the original species and of the body of Christ to be present in the host/prosphora, which sounds absurd to me but could nevertheless be acceptable for others. It'd better to stay far from theological definitions which are not grounded in the Bible or in Holy Tradition, though.

In Christ, alex

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Is there any way to let the author know that he has grossly misrepresented the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation? The Catholic teaching does not teach that the bread and wine physically turn into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.

This sounds like a physical change, doesn't it? This opinion is the interpretation of Catholic Encyclopedia in the article "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist", section "Transubstantiation". I will underline that this Encyclopedia has ecclesiastical approbation, so this is what the Catholic Church "really" believes.

In Christ, Alex

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.

This sounds like a physical change, doesn't it? This opinion is the interpretation of Catholic Encyclopedia in the article "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist", section "Transubstantiation". I will underline that this Encyclopedia has ecclesiastical approbation, so this is what the Catholic Church "really" believes.

Unless you can give a quote from a Catholic source that states the change is a "physical" change, I would hope you, or any other non-Catholic, would be decent enough to stop imposing interpretations on Catholic doctrine without any substantiation (no pun intended ). Go to any Catholic apologetics website and ask them if the change is "physical." I guarantee you they will deny it. They will describe the change as "a miracle," or "sacramental," but never "physical." Catholics don't claim or teach that Christ is "physically" present in the Eucharist, but "sacramentally" present.

Can you explain the difference of substance and accidents in Catholic theology, then? I think it would serve well to this discussion. I must also be clear that I have no true problem with transubstantiation. I feel it less 'odd' then consubstantiation - and more in line with a generic metabole or metaousia as we know it, anyway, but I'd never impose transubstantiation in Aquinas' definition to an Orthodox brother, anyway. The Real Presence as a conversion (on an unknown level) is more then sufficient.

In Christ, Alex

PS: It is really difficult to define (or even understand) the phylosophical concept of substance, huh?

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Can you explain the difference of substance and accidents in Catholic theology, then? I think it would serve well to this discussion. I must also be clear that I have no true problem with transubstantiation. I feel it less 'odd' then consubstantiation - and more in line with a generic metabole or metaousia as we know it, anyway, but I'd never impose transubstantiation in Aquinas' definition to an Orthodox brother, anyway. The Real Presence as a conversion (on an unknown level) is more then sufficient.

In Christ, Alex

PS: It is really difficult to define (or even understand) the phylosophical concept of substance, huh?

I would love to, brother, for the sake of understanding between Catholics and Orthodox, but, if sister Salpy is reading this, I will wait to see if she will allow such an explanation in this forum.

Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.

This sounds like a physical change, doesn't it? This opinion is the interpretation of Catholic Encyclopedia in the article "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist", section "Transubstantiation". I will underline that this Encyclopedia has ecclesiastical approbation, so this is what the Catholic Church "really" believes.

Unless you can give a quote from a Catholic source that states the change is a "physical" change, I would hope you, or any other non-Catholic, would be decent enough to stop imposing interpretations on Catholic doctrine without any substantiation (no pun intended ). Go to any Catholic apologetics website and ask them if the change is "physical." I guarantee you they will deny it. They will describe the change as "a miracle," or "sacramental," but never "physical." Catholics don't claim or teach that Christ is "physically" present in the Eucharist, but "sacramentally" present.

Blessings

I find this bizarre. I was taught as a Catholic that Christ IS physically present in the Eucharist, and when one goes to Eucharistic Adoration, Christ is physically present. In fact, I did get into a discussion about this very subject a number of years ago with Catholics and many backed me up saying it was a physical change. So what do you mean by saying "sacramentally present, but not physically present?" What does "real presence" mean? Why can't Catholics let their "yes mean yes and their no mean no"?

I found this on a Korean Catholic website (by the way, it appears to be a Catholic apologetics site of some sort) There are many other websites that I found that talk of this:

Quote

Fr. Ri says that he does not deny "the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist" but is rejecting that bread and wine turn into real flesh and blood of Christ through the consecration by a priest. To him, Christ is really present in the Eucharist but only in a personal and spiritual way. Is this what the Church teaches about the Eucharist? Is this what Christ said to His disciples? Our Lord said, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world … For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" (John 6: 51, 56). Many of Our Lord’s followers understood this literally and complained among themselves: "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" (John 6:60) They left Jesus and no longer accompanied Him (John 6:66). If Our Lord only meant His "flesh" and His "blood" in a symbolic or spiritual way, He would have called the Jews back, explaining that they misunderstood Him. But He didn’t call them back, and even challenged His twelve apostles to leave, if they could not accept His words: "Do you also want to leave?" (John 6:67) Throughout the 2,000-year history of Church, it has always been the authentic understanding of Our Lord’s words that He meant His physical presence in the Blessed Sacrament by means of His flesh and blood. Also, because His flesh and blood are living flesh and blood, His soul and Divinity necessarily exist together with His flesh and blood. This is how the totality of the Person of Christ exists in the Eucharist. Therefore, this personal presence of Jesus is not merely a spiritual one but is through His physical presence, just as God the Son became physically present in the world through the human nature of the Baby born of the Virgin Mary. Our Lord said, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him" (John 6:56). There cannot be a separation between Our Lord’s personal presence and His physical presence in the Eucharist.

To get back on topic, I am glad the Orthodox do not feel the need to go into such detail. For this reason, Orthodox don't have to have a discussion about "sacramental presence" and "physical presence." We just say "He's present" and leave it at that.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Prayer before Communion, from the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom:

I believe, Lord, and I confess that you are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. Also I believe that this is indeed your most pure Body, and this indeed your precious Blood. Therefore I beseech you, have mercy on me and forgive me my offences, voluntary and involuntary, in word and in deed, in knowledge and in ignorance, and count me worthy to partake uncondemned of your most pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for eternal life. Amen.

Is there any way to let the author know that he has grossly misrepresented the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation? The Catholic teaching does not teach that the bread and wine physically turn into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Blessings

Depends on what you mean by physically. Can you clarify?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Prayer before Communion, from the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom:

I believe, Lord, and I confess that you are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. Also I believe that this is indeed your most pure Body, and this indeed your precious Blood. Therefore I beseech you, have mercy on me and forgive me my offences, voluntary and involuntary, in word and in deed, in knowledge and in ignorance, and count me worthy to partake uncondemned of your most pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for eternal life. Amen.

Amen

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Prayer before Communion, from the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom:

I believe, Lord, and I confess that you are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. Also I believe that this is indeed your most pure Body, and this indeed your precious Blood. Therefore I beseech you, have mercy on me and forgive me my offences, voluntary and involuntary, in word and in deed, in knowledge and in ignorance, and count me worthy to partake uncondemned of your most pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for eternal life. Amen.

Amen

Thank you, Papist. All too often one can run around in circles, flinging patristic quotes at each other, yet, where can we find many of the answers easily? From what is read, said and sung in the Orthodox Church.

Can you explain the difference of substance and accidents in Catholic theology, then? I think it would serve well to this discussion. I must also be clear that I have no true problem with transubstantiation. I feel it less 'odd' then consubstantiation - and more in line with a generic metabole or metaousia as we know it, anyway, but I'd never impose transubstantiation in Aquinas' definition to an Orthodox brother, anyway. The Real Presence as a conversion (on an unknown level) is more then sufficient.

In Christ, Alex

PS: It is really difficult to define (or even understand) the phylosophical concept of substance, huh?

I would love to, brother, for the sake of understanding between Catholics and Orthodox, but, if sister Salpy is reading this, I will wait to see if she will allow such an explanation in this forum.

Blesssings,Marduk

OCnet rules are such that I am going to ask that you explain your Church's beliefs in the Orthodox-Catholic discussion forum. You can post a link to the explanation. Or, you can link to an already existing thread on the topic. I would imagine it exists, although I am not certain.

Transubstantiation, however, is not a conversion simply so called, but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis), inasmuch as one thing is substantially or essentially converted into another. Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.

This sounds like a physical change, doesn't it? This opinion is the interpretation of Catholic Encyclopedia in the article "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist", section "Transubstantiation". I will underline that this Encyclopedia has ecclesiastical approbation, so this is what the Catholic Church "really" believes.

Unless you can give a quote from a Catholic source that states the change is a "physical" change, I would hope you, or any other non-Catholic, would be decent enough to stop imposing interpretations on Catholic doctrine without any substantiation (no pun intended ). Go to any Catholic apologetics website and ask them if the change is "physical." I guarantee you they will deny it. They will describe the change as "a miracle," or "sacramental," but never "physical." Catholics don't claim or teach that Christ is "physically" present in the Eucharist, but "sacramentally" present.

Blessings

I find this bizarre. I was taught as a Catholic that Christ IS physically present in the Eucharist, and when one goes to Eucharistic Adoration, Christ is physically present. In fact, I did get into a discussion about this very subject a number of years ago with Catholics and many backed me up saying it was a physical change. So what do you mean by saying "sacramentally present, but not physically present?" What does "real presence" mean? Why can't Catholics let their "yes mean yes and their no mean no"?

I found this on a Korean Catholic website (by the way, it appears to be a Catholic apologetics site of some sort) There are many other websites that I found that talk of this:

Quote

Fr. Ri says that he does not deny "the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist" but is rejecting that bread and wine turn into real flesh and blood of Christ through the consecration by a priest. To him, Christ is really present in the Eucharist but only in a personal and spiritual way. Is this what the Church teaches about the Eucharist? Is this what Christ said to His disciples? Our Lord said, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world … For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" (John 6: 51, 56). Many of Our Lord’s followers understood this literally and complained among themselves: "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" (John 6:60) They left Jesus and no longer accompanied Him (John 6:66). If Our Lord only meant His "flesh" and His "blood" in a symbolic or spiritual way, He would have called the Jews back, explaining that they misunderstood Him. But He didn’t call them back, and even challenged His twelve apostles to leave, if they could not accept His words: "Do you also want to leave?" (John 6:67) Throughout the 2,000-year history of Church, it has always been the authentic understanding of Our Lord’s words that He meant His physical presence in the Blessed Sacrament by means of His flesh and blood. Also, because His flesh and blood are living flesh and blood, His soul and Divinity necessarily exist together with His flesh and blood. This is how the totality of the Person of Christ exists in the Eucharist. Therefore, this personal presence of Jesus is not merely a spiritual one but is through His physical presence, just as God the Son became physically present in the world through the human nature of the Baby born of the Virgin Mary. Our Lord said, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him" (John 6:56). There cannot be a separation between Our Lord’s personal presence and His physical presence in the Eucharist.

To get back on topic, I am glad the Orthodox do not feel the need to go into such detail. For this reason, Orthodox don't have to have a discussion about "sacramental presence" and "physical presence." We just say "He's present" and leave it at that.

It's good that you feel it's that simple. In fact, I don't see that there is even any debate about the matter between Orthodox and Catholics on the matter.

The reason we need to explain it is in order to meet the objections of those who do not have the apostolic Faith. How indeed would the Orthodox meet the objections of Protestants who claim: 1) "Christ is only spiritually present."

2) Catholics and Orthodox are practicing cannibalism in their Eucharist.

Ponder your responses, and I think you will discover:1) It is not as simple as simply claiming "Christ is present";

2) the necessity of being able to explain the matter in a logical and coherent manner;

3) just how similar, if not actually identical, the Catholic and Orthodox teachings are.

Is there any way to let the author know that he has grossly misrepresented the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation? The Catholic teaching does not teach that the bread and wine physically turn into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Depends on what you mean by physically. Can you clarify?

Indeed, brother Papist. Without actually explaining the matter (given the Forum rules), that is actually the whole point of the matter.

Can you explain the difference of substance and accidents in Catholic theology, then? I think it would serve well to this discussion. I must also be clear that I have no true problem with transubstantiation. I feel it less 'odd' then consubstantiation - and more in line with a generic metabole or metaousia as we know it, anyway, but I'd never impose transubstantiation in Aquinas' definition to an Orthodox brother, anyway. The Real Presence as a conversion (on an unknown level) is more then sufficient.

In Christ, Alex

PS: It is really difficult to define (or even understand) the phylosophical concept of substance, huh?

I would love to, brother, for the sake of understanding between Catholics and Orthodox, but, if sister Salpy is reading this, I will wait to see if she will allow such an explanation in this forum.

Blesssings,Marduk

I've only been around for a little while but... Salpy's a girl!? Haha. For some reason I thought Salpy was a dude all this time- I have no idea why.

How indeed would the Orthodox meet the objections of Protestants who claim: 1) "Christ is only spiritually present."

See above "this is indeed your most pure Body, and this indeed your precious Blood." It's a plain statement, the simplest grammar in any language I'm aware of: x is y. Period.

Quote

2) Catholics and Orthodox are practicing cannibalism in their Eucharist.

My response would be 'so?'. If it *is* the Body and Blood of Christ, then it can only be so through the direct action of the Holy Spirit. If Christ commanded it and the Holy Spirit chooses to give it to us, who are you (i.e., generic Protestant) to criticize?

Quote

Ponder your responses, and I think you will discover:1) It is not as simple as simply claiming "Christ is present";

True, for Orthodox it's simpler. It's not even a matter of 'Christ is present', it's that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.

Quote

2) the necessity of being able to explain the matter in a logical and coherent manner;

I think this actually gets at the crux of the difference between Orthodox (Oriental or Eastern) and RC here. The Eucharist is a transcendent Mystery (in the original sense of that term). We don't see a 'necessity' to explain it; like 1=1 in Math, 'it is the body and blood of Christ' is an axiomatic statement.

That said, Orthodoxy has not, generally, had a problem with Transubstantion. We don't embrace it, as the Roman Church does, simply because it is based on Thomist/Scholastic philosophical categories that we do not necessarily accept. Or to put it another way, *if* you are going to assume a Thomist philosophy, then Transubstantion is a perfectly valid explanation of the Eucharist. And therefore, an Orthodox can define our belief as 'Transubstantion' (as, for example, the EI Council of Jerusalem). It's just not required to define it that way, since the underlying philosophy/categories/vocabulary is not required (or even generally accepted)

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Is there any way to let the author know that he has grossly misrepresented the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation? The Catholic teaching does not teach that the bread and wine physically turn into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Depends on what you mean by physically. Can you clarify?

Indeed, brother Papist. Without actually explaining the matter (given the Forum rules), that is actually the whole point of the matter.

Blessings

Can you start a thread in the Orthodox-Catholic discussion area?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

The MOSC is giving its own interpretation and, I think, it's making a mistake. I even think that, as I did in the past, they don't understand precisely what consubstantiation means in truth. Anyway, this is far from being an official statement from the entire Orthodox Church and, if we want to be more accurate, the word transubstantiation fits better with Orthodox theology since at least it had some approval at the Pan-orthodox Council of Jerusalem.

In Christ, Alex

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

The MOSC is giving its own interpretation and, I think, it's making a mistake. I even think that, as I did in the past, they don't understand precisely what consubstantiation means in truth. Anyway, this is far from being an official statement from the entire Orthodox Church and, if we want to be more accurate, the word transubstantiation fits better with Orthodox theology since at least it had some approval at the Pan-orthodox Council of Jerusalem.

In Christ, Alex

The OP was simply asking if it was a present and tolerated view among some EO or OO, while clearly not being the official, ecumenical, agreed upon teaching. My link answered that question in the affirmative.

I think the view expressed in this link is really more consistent with the Apostolic Tradition than what you see at the Synod of Jerusalem. To say that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word are made present in, with, and under the bread and wine is much less objectionable than suggesting that the bread and wine are substantially annihilated and replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word, leaving only their appearance behind.

The MOSC is giving its own interpretation and, I think, it's making a mistake. I even think that, as I did in the past, they don't understand precisely what consubstantiation means in truth. Anyway, this is far from being an official statement from the entire Orthodox Church and, if we want to be more accurate, the word transubstantiation fits better with Orthodox theology since at least it had some approval at the Pan-orthodox Council of Jerusalem.

In Christ, Alex

The OP was simply asking if it was a present and tolerated view among some EO or OO, while clearly not being the official, ecumenical, agreed upon teaching. My link answered that question in the affirmative.

I think the view expressed in this link is really more consistent with the Apostolic Tradition than what you see at the Synod of Jerusalem. To say that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word are made present in, with, and under the bread and wine is much less objectionable than suggesting that the bread and wine are substantially annihilated and replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word, leaving only their appearance behind.

This is true if you can find any quotes from the Fathers or from the Divine Liturgy affirming that bread and wine continue to exist within the Holy Species. If you can provide any, I'll be happy to read them.Let st. Cyril of Jerusalem answer for me:

Quote

"Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

In Christ, Alex

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

In Christ, Alex

UH OH. This thread is about to get real fun.

« Last Edit: November 10, 2009, 11:37:42 AM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

In Christ, Alex

UH OH. This thread is about to get real fun.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't like Scholasticism. Nevertheless, in the case of transubstantiation the words of st. Cyril precede those of Thomas Aquinas by some 1000 years: my defence isn't for Orthodoxy or for Catholicism, but for Truth.

In Christ, Alex

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

In Christ, Alex

UH OH. This thread is about to get real fun.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't like Scholasticism. Nevertheless, in the case of transubstantiation the words of st. Cyril precede those of Thomas Aquinas by some 1000 years: my defence isn't for Orthodoxy or for Catholicism, but for Truth.

In Christ, Alex

I understand. I'm just teasing.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

The MOSC is giving its own interpretation and, I think, it's making a mistake. I even think that, as I did in the past, they don't understand precisely what consubstantiation means in truth. Anyway, this is far from being an official statement from the entire Orthodox Church and, if we want to be more accurate, the word transubstantiation fits better with Orthodox theology since at least it had some approval at the Pan-orthodox Council of Jerusalem.

In Christ, Alex

The OP was simply asking if it was a present and tolerated view among some EO or OO, while clearly not being the official, ecumenical, agreed upon teaching. My link answered that question in the affirmative.

I think the view expressed in this link is really more consistent with the Apostolic Tradition than what you see at the Synod of Jerusalem. To say that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word are made present in, with, and under the bread and wine is much less objectionable than suggesting that the bread and wine are substantially annihilated and replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word, leaving only their appearance behind.

This is true if you can find any quotes from the Fathers or from the Divine Liturgy affirming that bread and wine continue to exist within the Holy Species. If you can provide any, I'll be happy to read them.Let st. Cyril of Jerusalem answer for me:

Quote

"Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

In Christ, Alex

Doesn't it say somewhere in the fathers though that he who partakes without belief only received bread and wine, not the Body and Blood? i wish I could remember the source.

I know we can't agree with consubstantation. Christ said "This is my Body", not "My Body is in here". We believe that it literally is the Body and Blood when we partake. But I don't know about all the details of transubstantiation either, that makes it a physical change (i.e. a change of the substance). It is literally the Body and Blood of Christ that we're partaking of. But in what sense? Has it been physically changed (substance changed) and yet the physical appearance (accidents) remain unchanged as transubstantiation teaches? I do not know one way or the other, only that it is literally the Body and Blood, but I do not know the nature of the change, only that it mysteriously becomes the Body and Blood.

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation.

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

The MOSC is giving its own interpretation and, I think, it's making a mistake. I even think that, as I did in the past, they don't understand precisely what consubstantiation means in truth. Anyway, this is far from being an official statement from the entire Orthodox Church and, if we want to be more accurate, the word transubstantiation fits better with Orthodox theology since at least it had some approval at the Pan-orthodox Council of Jerusalem.

In Christ, Alex

The OP was simply asking if it was a present and tolerated view among some EO or OO, while clearly not being the official, ecumenical, agreed upon teaching. My link answered that question in the affirmative.

I think the view expressed in this link is really more consistent with the Apostolic Tradition than what you see at the Synod of Jerusalem. To say that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word are made present in, with, and under the bread and wine is much less objectionable than suggesting that the bread and wine are substantially annihilated and replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Word, leaving only their appearance behind.

This is true if you can find any quotes from the Fathers or from the Divine Liturgy affirming that bread and wine continue to exist within the Holy Species. If you can provide any, I'll be happy to read them.Let st. Cyril of Jerusalem answer for me:

Quote

"Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

In Christ, Alex

Doesn't it say somewhere in the fathers though that he who partakes without belief only received bread and wine, not the Body and Blood? i wish I could remember the source.

I know we can't agree with consubstantation. Christ said "This is my Body", not "My Body is in here". We believe that it literally is the Body and Blood when we partake. But I don't know about all the details of transubstantiation either, that makes it a physical change (i.e. a change of the substance). It is literally the Body and Blood of Christ that we're partaking of. But in what sense? Has it been physically changed (substance changed) and yet the physical appearance (accidents) remain unchanged as transubstantiation teaches? I do not know one way or the other, only that it is literally the Body and Blood, but I do not know the nature of the change, only that it mysteriously becomes the Body and Blood.

A possible interpretation is that, lacking the positive effects of communing in Christ's body and blood, the unworthy communicando is affected only as if the prosphora were pure bread and the cup contained pure wine. Also it might be that, in order for Christ's body and blood to be preserved from sacrilege, the effects of consecration and transubstantiation can reverse. Sincerely, I wouldn't get too much interest in the HOW. I only know we can't say the prosphora is still bread if not in appearance, as st. Cyril said; the manner of this change, and the character of His permanence in the holy gifts, is a fruit of pure speculation even the greatest theologians didn't study in depth, both in the Western and Eastern traditions, with good results. My previous consideration meant to say that the word "consubstantiation" is even more dangerous: it means that Christ's body and blood are "mixed" within bread and wine, in a certain sense, and i don't think we have any proof of this neither by Tradition nor by Liturgy, while at least one father spoke in favour of transubstantiation (in its general lines... of course he couldn't use the specific Aristotelian terminologies of Scholasticism!). In Greek theology, the best word remains transmutation, though.

In Christ, Alex

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

A possible interpretation is that, lacking the positive effects of communing in Christ's body and blood, the unworthy communicando is affected only as if the prosphora were pure bread and the cup contained pure wine.

What St. Paul says is that the unworthy communicando 'eats and drinks damnation to himself.' Which seems a bit stronger than it being mere bread and wine.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

A possible interpretation is that, lacking the positive effects of communing in Christ's body and blood, the unworthy communicando is affected only as if the prosphora were pure bread and the cup contained pure wine.

What St. Paul says is that the unworthy communicando 'eats and drinks damnation to himself.' Which seems a bit stronger than it being mere bread and wine.

Well could be like the difference in the way the saved and the damned experience God, but it is still God nonetheless?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

A possible interpretation is that, lacking the positive effects of communing in Christ's body and blood, the unworthy communicando is affected only as if the prosphora were pure bread and the cup contained pure wine.

What St. Paul says is that the unworthy communicando 'eats and drinks damnation to himself.' Which seems a bit stronger than it being mere bread and wine.

Well could be like the difference in the way the saved and the damned experience God, but it is still God nonetheless?

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

A possible interpretation is that, lacking the positive effects of communing in Christ's body and blood, the unworthy communicando is affected only as if the prosphora were pure bread and the cup contained pure wine.

What St. Paul says is that the unworthy communicando 'eats and drinks damnation to himself.' Which seems a bit stronger than it being mere bread and wine.

Well could be like the difference in the way the saved and the damned experience God, but it is still God nonetheless?

That's my understanding.

That's mine too. I was just suggesting with position #2. My first position is that bread and wine are no more and that Christ's body and blood have no positive effects on the soul of the communicando, and that the same fact of eating unworthily the holy eucharist is a sacrilege detrimental to one's soul. This, I think, is what anyone would easily accept.

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

"Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

This is perfectly the same as the transubstantiation of Scholasticism: a full transmutation of the bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood where bread and wine remain only to the senses (the accidents) is identical to the RC definition of transubstantiation, don't you think?

If the translation is accurate, yes. I am somewhat skeptical if it is. But assuming it is, I don't see what the big deal is. That just means Cyril of Jersualem believed in a transubstantiation akin to what the Scholastics defined. So what? Transubstantiation is just as much a tolerated opinion as any other explanation of the Real Presence.

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation.

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

Said catechisms appearing after the fall of Constantinople are not viewed with much authority.

A possible interpretation is that, lacking the positive effects of communing in Christ's body and blood, the unworthy communicando is affected only as if the prosphora were pure bread and the cup contained pure wine.

Oh jimminy. If we're not allowed to interpret receiving Body and Blood as "as if" likewise we cannot do that with receiving bread and wine. You're introducing a double standard.

My previous consideration meant to say that the word "consubstantiation" is even more dangerous: it means that Christ's body and blood are "mixed" within bread and wine,

They are no more mixed than the humanity and divinity of Christ are mixed even in the hypostatic union (which they are not).

I'm not saying that it is a hypostatic union, just that if a mixture is not affected even in the hypostatic union where the humanity and divinity indwell each other (not that indwelling is the extent of the union), then there is no reason to suggest that the indwelling of these elements in the Eucharist involves a mixture.

in a certain sense, and i don't think we have any proof of this neither by Tradition nor by Liturgy, while at least one father spoke in favour of transubstantiation (in its general lines... of course he couldn't use the specific Aristotelian terminologies of Scholasticism!). In Greek theology, the best word remains transmutation, though.

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation.

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

Said catechisms appearing after the fall of Constantinople are not viewed with much authority.

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation.

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

Said catechisms appearing after the fall of Constantinople are not viewed with much authority.

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation.

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

Said catechisms appearing after the fall of Constantinople are not viewed with much authority.

Says you, a person who is not even Orthodox.

Pardon? What do you mean by that?

They are not viewed with much authority by who? You can't possibly claim to speak for the entire Orthodox Church.

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation.

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

Said catechisms appearing after the fall of Constantinople are not viewed with much authority.

Says you, a person who is not even Orthodox.

Pardon? What do you mean by that?

They are not viewed with much authority by who? You can't possibly claim to speak for the entire Orthodox Church.

No, I was asking what you meant when you said that I'm "not even Orthodox"?

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation.

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

Said catechisms appearing after the fall of Constantinople are not viewed with much authority.

Says you, a person who is not even Orthodox.

Pardon? What do you mean by that?

They are not viewed with much authority by who? You can't possibly claim to speak for the entire Orthodox Church.

No, I was asking what you meant when you said that I'm "not even Orthodox"?

According to your member profile, you are not Orthodox. It seems improper that you should point out what Orthodox find authoritative and what they do not.

According to your member profile, you are not Orthodox. It seems improper that you should point out what Orthodox find authoritative and what they do not.

Oh, I don't know about that. Let's suppose that I said the following: "15th century Russian penitential literature isn't authoritative today". Now that's a claim that I've made. Whether it's accurate or not doesn't depend on whether I'm Orthodox. You can ask me to give some evidence to back up my claim. Or you can go back and see what 15th century Russian penitential literature said, and prove or disprove my claim yourself. But there's no need to disregard the claim just because the source isn't Orthodox. Now, if the source person has a history of lying, or making up things out of thin air with no proof, I could understand some skepticism. But otherwise, I would ask that you not be too harsh with we non-Orthodox.

According to your member profile, you are not Orthodox. It seems improper that you should point out what Orthodox find authoritative and what they do not.

Watch it, Samkin.

Actually, the Orthodox answer, as given by my own Church, is: "It's a mystery." Among the OO's, we know it is somehow the body and blood of Christ, and don't go elaborating any further. At least that's how it is in the Armenian Church.

Deusveritasest from what I understand, is currently an EO who is looking into the OO Church. If you want to say that the EO's are not Orthodox, you can do that, but it would be nice if you did it in the private forum.

Just to point out in Samkim's defense--while many of us are aware of deusveritas' path, if you simply go by his current profile which samkim pointed too, it says that he is an 'inquirer'. There's no reference to his past EO membership; and he's explicitly not OO (as in a communicating member of a church) yet.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Just to point out in Samkim's defense--while many of us are aware of deusveritas' path, if you simply go by his current profile which samkim pointed too, it says that he is an 'inquirer'. There's no reference to his past EO membership; and he's explicitly not OO (as in a communicating member of a church) yet.

Deusveritasest,'transmutation' is the the most frequent translation of Greek word "metabolé" used as a synonim for transubstantiation before the Synod of Jerusalem. Similar words such as trans-elementation (metastoicheiosis) can also be used under the same meaning.

You have misunderstood my previous post. The holy gifts can REMAIN Christ's body and blood when unworthily eated by a weaked person, but the wicked will experience only the proper effects of bread and wine (physical nourishment) but not the spiritual effects of Christ's body and blood (spiritual nourishment). For the body, if you eat bread or meat it's the same: you're still eating and replenishing your stomach. Also, the fact that you don't receive the holy species with the conscience that they are Christ's body and blood, you are committing a sacrilege because your consuming human flesh and blood as food for your body, and not Christ as food for your soul. It's the attitude that makes the sacrament effective for one's life. If a person with no real faith in Christ's work of redemption is baptised for some personal convenience, is the baptism effective or not? If one receives Holy Myron but doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit which is communicating through it, will the person be guided by the Paraclete or will he remain alone in the darkness of his heart exactly as he was before? In like manner, an unworthy reception of the Eucharist is not only useless and ineffective for one's spiritual growth, but can even become detrimental in God's sight providing a condemnation, because receiving the Eucharist with a false faith means bearing false witness, trying to joke God and his Church.

I hope I've been clearer now.

In Christ, Alex

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

Forgive me for any maliciousness. I was really annoyed with many things last night. Also, just to be clear, I believe Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox, and I wait eagerly for fuller communion between our Churches.

Is there any way to let the author know that he has grossly misrepresented the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation? The Catholic teaching does not teach that the bread and wine physically turn into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Blessings

How do you explain Lanciano then? The very idea of transubstantiation includes a sense of physical presence unless you follow the modern theologians like Karl Rahner or Edward Shillebeex who say that the Eucharist is a sign of the body of Christ. Here is a link that mentions it being physical from EWTN.

Is there any way to let the author know that he has grossly misrepresented the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation? The Catholic teaching does not teach that the bread and wine physically turn into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Blessings

How do you explain Lanciano then? The very idea of transubstantiation includes a sense of physical presence unless you follow the modern theologians like Karl Rahner or Edward Shillebeex who say that the Eucharist is a sign of the body of Christ. Here is a link that mentions it being physical from EWTN.

We really should start a thread on this in the Orthodox-Catholic subforum.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Is it accurate and correct to say that the Orthodox believe in Consubstantiation.

I've often asked myself this question...

When some Orthodox priests try and explain our view of transmutation, it ends up sounding a lot like consubstantiation. However, consubstantiation and the Lutheran view of "in, with, and under" are explicitly rejected in several formal declarations and catechisms written from about the 17th c. and onward. See Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."

Said catechisms appearing after the fall of Constantinople are not viewed with much authority.

Says you, a person who is not even Orthodox.

Pardon? What do you mean by that?

They are not viewed with much authority by who? You can't possibly claim to speak for the entire Orthodox Church.

No, I was asking what you meant when you said that I'm "not even Orthodox"?

According to your member profile, you are not Orthodox. It seems improper that you should point out what Orthodox find authoritative and what they do not.

Just to point out in Samkim's defense--while many of us are aware of deusveritas' path, if you simply go by his current profile which samkim pointed too, it says that he is an 'inquirer'. There's no reference to his past EO membership; and he's explicitly not OO (as in a communicating member of a church) yet.

It still involves quite an assumption that because I'm inquiring Oriental Orthodoxy that I'm not Orthodox.

Just to point out in Samkim's defense--while many of us are aware of deusveritas' path, if you simply go by his current profile which samkim pointed too, it says that he is an 'inquirer'. There's no reference to his past EO membership; and he's explicitly not OO (as in a communicating member of a church) yet.

Forgive me for any maliciousness. I was really annoyed with many things last night. Also, just to be clear, I believe Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox, and I wait eagerly for fuller communion between our Churches.

No, Salpy said that the only way I would not be Orthodox is if the Eastern Orthodox are not Orthodox, because the EOC is the group that I am actually a sacramentally intiated member in (though I haven't partaken of Communion since I started considering OOy).

No, Salpy said that the only way I would not be Orthodox is if the Eastern Orthodox are not Orthodox, because the EOC is the group that I am actually a sacramentally intiated member in (though I haven't partaken of Communion since I started considering OOy).

In that case, I think Salpy is wrong. If you are not in Communion with either the Eastern or Oriental Churches, how are you "Orthodox"?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

No, Salpy said that the only way I would not be Orthodox is if the Eastern Orthodox are not Orthodox, because the EOC is the group that I am actually a sacramentally intiated member in (though I haven't partaken of Communion since I started considering OOy).

In that case, I think Salpy is wrong. If you are not in Communion with either the Eastern or Oriental Churches, how are you "Orthodox"?

The only place I have taken Communion since my Baptism has been in an EO church. I have taken a break from taking Communion anywhere for a few months now because of this issue.

So, whether or not I am in communion with either church is rather up for debate. For instance, if I were to go to an Armenian church right now, they would (officially I believe) admit me to Communion. If I were to go back to the OCA church I transferred to a little bit after I was Baptized, I would also be admitted, probably only after an administering of Confession.

See, I think this is an related issue to this thread, deusveritasest.A Christian doesn't "take a break" from Communing in the Body of Christ, except when under excommunication. Communion is what defines us a Christians ("unless you eat the Flesh...."), and there is no point in claiming to be "Orthodox" if we are not Christians.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Whether Deusveritasest is Orthodox is not the subject of this thread. I think the subject is supposed to be whether the OO's believe in Consubstantiation, whatever that is. Let's please keep on that topic.

If someone wants to discuss Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation in the context of the Catholic or EO Church, that belongs in another forum. Whether or not someone is still Orthodox if they haven't taken Communion for a while is also the topic of another thread. I think that thread would only belong here if it specifically pertained to the OO Church.

OK I just re-read the OP and realized the original question had to do with Consubstantiation and both the OO's or EO's. In other words, it's about Consubstantiation and Orthodoxy in the more expansive sense of the word. I guess then that discussion should be whether OO's or EO's or both believe in that. The discussion of how Catholics feel about it should still be in the Orthodox-Catholic Forum. I have no problem with an EO who is inquiring into the OO Church and hasn't communed in a while participating, and I don't want a discussion on whether or not such a person is Orthodox to be in this thread. I hope this clears things up. Sorry about the mixup.

Seeing as how there is no "Orthodox", "Eastern Orthodox", or "Oriental Orthodox" option on Myspace, I put Catholic indicating Orthodox Catholic.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I thought most Orthodox put "Christian - Other" on myspace, but then I don't know many Orthodox on myspace, so my experience is limited. Thanks for correcting my mistake.

Seeing as how there is no "Orthodox", "Eastern Orthodox", or "Oriental Orthodox" option on Myspace, I put Catholic indicating Orthodox Catholic.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I thought most Orthodox put "Christian - Other" on myspace, but then I don't know many Orthodox on myspace, so my experience is limited. Thanks for correcting my mistake.

That's alright. Your post was not one of the most offensive in this thread.

Is there any way to let the author know that he has grossly misrepresented the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation? The Catholic teaching does not teach that the bread and wine physically turn into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Blessings

How do you explain Lanciano then? The very idea of transubstantiation includes a sense of physical presence unless you follow the modern theologians like Karl Rahner or Edward Shillebeex who say that the Eucharist is a sign of the body of Christ. Here is a link that mentions it being physical from EWTN.

To RCs Lanciano is, by definition, a miracle. I wouldn't consider this very important in defining HOW the Eucharist ordinarily changes bread and wine into Christ's body and blood. Or would you assume that all the times a bishop blesses an icon, the saint within it will perform miracles through the icon as a consequence of the blessing alone? Miracles are just, as st. John said, signs from God. And they especially occur to strenghten faith, making visible to the senses what occurs ordinarily only in an invisible/sacramental way. In the case of the Lanciano miracle, a RC might object that at Lanciano the consecrated host actually became (physically and visibly) flesh to reveal to the doubting priest the certainty that Christ's body is indeed present under the appearance of bread. As for me, I even think the body and blood are substantially present in an unknown manner under the gifts, which is anyway a mystery I wouldn't study too much.

The holy gifts can REMAIN Christ's body and blood when unworthily eated by a weaked person,

Only if consubstantiation is true. Otherwise, the transformation of the elements is complete at the end of the epiclesis, significantly before anyone receives the Gifts.

If consubstantiation is true, you're still eating bread and wine together with Christ. When I partake in the Eucharist, I KNOW there's no bread and wine anymore in the priest's hands. And anyway, I never said that the body and blood of Christ are not present under the veil of bread and wine before the gifts are eaten. On the contrary, they are present SINCE the time of consecration for both the just and the wicked. But eating worthily means spiritually communing in Christ, while eating unworthily means assimilating Christ's flesh as if it were ordinary food (more or less like eating some meat). That's the difference which makes the wicked responsible for a sacrilege: they are changing the function of the Eucharist from a gift of grace into ordinary food as if Christ meant nothing or weren't present.

In Christ, Alex

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

I know we can't agree with consubstantation. Christ said "This is my Body", not "My Body is in here". We believe that it literally is the Body and Blood when we partake.

Huh? Consubstantiation also involves the partaking of the literal Body and Blood of Christ.

According to my limited understanding, consubstantiation teaches that one is partaking of the Body and Blood, and bread and wine, i.e. that both are present, that the Body and Blood are under or in the bread and wine. (I'm expressing it badly, but I hope what I am claiming to be the difference is clear), in Orthodox we believe it to BE the Body and Blood that we partake of. I don't think we can say that it is still in any sense bread or wine as well. (To hopefully avoid a debate on whether that is ok to believe in Orthodoxy, it doesn't matter, what's important is that we can't go as far as to positively teach it, which I believe consubstantiation does). I still just think both transubstantiation and consubstantiation go too far past what we simply know, it is the Body and Blood that we partake of.

I know we can't agree with consubstantation. Christ said "This is my Body", not "My Body is in here". We believe that it literally is the Body and Blood when we partake.

Huh? Consubstantiation also involves the partaking of the literal Body and Blood of Christ.

According to my limited understanding, consubstantiation teaches that one is partaking of the Body and Blood, and bread and wine, i.e. that both are present, that the Body and Blood are under or in the bread and wine. (I'm expressing it badly, but I hope what I am claiming to be the difference is clear), in Orthodox we believe it to BE the Body and Blood that we partake of. I don't think we can say that it is still in any sense bread or wine as well. (To hopefully avoid a debate on whether that is ok to believe in Orthodoxy, it doesn't matter, what's important is that we can't go as far as to positively teach it, which I believe consubstantiation does). I still just think both transubstantiation and consubstantiation go too far past what we simply know, it is the Body and Blood that we partake of.

How does transubstantiation go past what we know?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

There are no official or statements in the Orthodox church on the exact way the 'change' occurs in the species at the Consecration.The Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem (XVII century) adopts the same aristotelian concepts of the Latin dogma of transsubstantiation, such as "substance" and "accidents", and also translates "transsubstantiation" as literally as possible with a constructed word, "metaousia". It must be said that the Council of Jerusalem is regarded as authoritative but not infallible in its definitions, i.e. it may contain errors such as imprecise formulas to define dogmas because of an exaggerated Latin influence on the assembly, due to the fact that most bishops and theologians present at the synod had been educated in Western (and thus Catholic) schools and seminaries. Anyway, even in that case, the word 'substance' has more of a 'spiritual/mystical' feeling then its Latin counterpart "substantia". That said, AFAIK, consubstantiation is not an official statement on faith in the Real Presence. What an Orthodox Christian should acknowledge is that we receive bread and wine as true Body and true Blood of Christ, but the manner of this change (called 'metabole') is indeed unknown. This sense of 'mystery' is essential to the Orthodox faith, in fact all sacraments are called 'Mysteries'. I sincerely don't know how consubstantiation could be regarded as an Orthodox doctrine, since Lutheran terminology on this belief implies a mixture of the original species and of the body of Christ to be present in the host/prosphora, which sounds absurd to me but could nevertheless be acceptable for others. It'd better to stay far from theological definitions which are not grounded in the Bible or in Holy Tradition, though.

In Christ, alex

I asked my priest about the importance of this particular council a while ago, and how Orthodox view such terms as "transubstantiation". I think a similar approach can be taken to "consubstantiation". Here is his answer to my question:

"The Council of Jerusalem has not had much staying power among the Orthodox, as its statements represent Latinization of Orthodox theology. It's an example of the "Western Captivity" of Orthodox theology that held sway for quite some time until the "patristic revival" of the 20th century. The Council of Jerusalem represents a fairly successful attempt by the RC's to get the Orthodox "on their side" as much as possible against Protestants.

Basically "transubstantiation" in the full RC sense enslaves the mystery of the Eucharist to the categories of Aristotelian philosophy. This is a product of Western "Scholastic" theology and utterly alien to the Fathers. Eastern Orthodox used the term, some do to this day, but they simply mean "transformation" by it, without all the Aristotelian/Scholastic baggage that goes along with it. "

There are no official or statements in the Orthodox church on the exact way the 'change' occurs in the species at the Consecration.The Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem (XVII century) adopts the same aristotelian concepts of the Latin dogma of transsubstantiation, such as "substance" and "accidents", and also translates "transsubstantiation" as literally as possible with a constructed word, "metaousia". It must be said that the Council of Jerusalem is regarded as authoritative but not infallible in its definitions, i.e. it may contain errors such as imprecise formulas to define dogmas because of an exaggerated Latin influence on the assembly, due to the fact that most bishops and theologians present at the synod had been educated in Western (and thus Catholic) schools and seminaries. Anyway, even in that case, the word 'substance' has more of a 'spiritual/mystical' feeling then its Latin counterpart "substantia". That said, AFAIK, consubstantiation is not an official statement on faith in the Real Presence. What an Orthodox Christian should acknowledge is that we receive bread and wine as true Body and true Blood of Christ, but the manner of this change (called 'metabole') is indeed unknown. This sense of 'mystery' is essential to the Orthodox faith, in fact all sacraments are called 'Mysteries'. I sincerely don't know how consubstantiation could be regarded as an Orthodox doctrine, since Lutheran terminology on this belief implies a mixture of the original species and of the body of Christ to be present in the host/prosphora, which sounds absurd to me but could nevertheless be acceptable for others. It'd better to stay far from theological definitions which are not grounded in the Bible or in Holy Tradition, though.

In Christ, alex

I asked my priest about the importance of this particular council a while ago, and how Orthodox view such terms as "transubstantiation". I think a similar approach can be taken to "consubstantiation". Here is his answer to my question:

"The Council of Jerusalem has not had much staying power among the Orthodox, as its statements represent Latinization of Orthodox theology. It's an example of the "Western Captivity" of Orthodox theology that held sway for quite some time until the "patristic revival" of the 20th century. The Council of Jerusalem represents a fairly successful attempt by the RC's to get the Orthodox "on their side" as much as possible against Protestants.

Basically "transubstantiation" in the full RC sense enslaves the mystery of the Eucharist to the categories of Aristotelian philosophy. This is a product of Western "Scholastic" theology and utterly alien to the Fathers. Eastern Orthodox used the term, some do to this day, but they simply mean "transformation" by it, without all the Aristotelian/Scholastic baggage that goes along with it. "

While, as I have repeated - I don't know - some 1000 times in this thread, I am not a lover of Scholasticism, I think that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are making exactly the same errors: they want their own theological languages to be imposed as the only good one. Latins have forgotten the Greek roots of many Church Fathers, as well as the Orthodox demonize everything coming from Western Christianity which isn't expressed precisely in the same words as the Greek Church Fathers. In the Early Church, there were both Latins AND Greeks. They had their different ways to express the same doctrines and they didn't demonize each other, since the Seven Ecumenical Councils solved these distinctions with common agreements. The Councils were often held by a majority of Greek Fathers, but the Pope and his legates 'balanced' the Greek understanding with a Latin perspective on the issues. Is it so difficult to acknowledge that in the passage I quoted an Eastern Father (st. Cyril of Jerusalem) was using EXACTLY the same concepts of Scholasticism when teaching the Eucharistic Presence of our Lord in the Prosphora and in the Chalice? This continued "Greek theology is bad" from the Roman Catholic side and "Latin theology is bad" from the Eastern Orthodox side are exactly the same attitude of st. Peter and st. Paul when they were one against the other. How can we be Christians when we refute by prejudice to hear each other with understanding? How can we seek a reunion - or at least hope and pray for it - if we don't look for what is COMMON among our theologies? There are LOTS of churches everywhere in the world whose teachings are incredibly further from both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and yet you don't condemn them as vehemently as you do with each other, despite these sects (in particular the Protestant world) are more dangerous with their heresies! I'm sorry for this innuendo, but I was waiting for a while to show my new position. I have been defending Orthodoxy in all respects for these months, but seeing that the same problems (blindness, I would say) are present in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism when it comes to a TRUE dialogue, I find myself deeply sorrowful. I hope all of you might understand my delusion and pray for my rage to calm down as soon as possible, because I feel frustrated.

In Christ, Alex

PS: This isn't directly something against you, dear Ortho_cat. It's about the entire system of Catholic-Orthodox discussions perpetrated both in this board and 'outside' in the real ecumenical round tables of our hierarchs, both RC and EO.

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

fair enough. If I could go back and change my name it would be to "Mega-Papist".

« Last Edit: November 13, 2009, 03:51:08 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I generally have not spent a lot of time with what Protestants believe on the Eucharist, but I did look up "consubstantiation" and it is not compatible with the view above from St. Cyril of Jerusalm. Where Cyril says "appearance of bread", Lutherans said, "it's still bread," which is an attitude that has been compared to Nestorianism. "What part of these gifts is not Jesus Christ?" There doesn't seem to be a common Anglican belief on what happens, but they do like the phrease "real presence." I'm curious what ARCIC came up with a couple of years ago. For old thread fun on the two terms...

"The Council of Jerusalem has not had much staying power among the Orthodox, as its statements represent Latinization of Orthodox theology. It's an example of the "Western Captivity" of Orthodox theology that held sway for quite some time until the "patristic revival" of the 20th century. The Council of Jerusalem represents a fairly successful attempt by the RC's to get the Orthodox "on their side" as much as possible against Protestants.

I find it hard to accept that 20th century "Patristic revivalists" understand things better than a Holy Council of the Orthodox Church! Truths that were hidden from all until Florovsky found the mystic Rosetta Stone and cracked the code, I suppose.... Western influence existed in those times just like it was Western influences that allowed the Patristic revival--the Church expresses itself in the cultural context it finds itself in.

"The Council of Jerusalem has not had much staying power among the Orthodox, as its statements represent Latinization of Orthodox theology. It's an example of the "Western Captivity" of Orthodox theology that held sway for quite some time until the "patristic revival" of the 20th century. The Council of Jerusalem represents a fairly successful attempt by the RC's to get the Orthodox "on their side" as much as possible against Protestants.

I find it hard to accept that 20th century "Patristic revivalists" understand things better than a Holy Council of the Orthodox Church! Truths that were hidden from all until Florovsky found the mystic Rosetta Stone and cracked the code, I suppose.... Western influence existed in those times just like it was Western influences that allowed the Patristic revival--the Church expresses itself in the cultural context it finds itself in.

"The Council of Jerusalem has not had much staying power among the Orthodox, as its statements represent Latinization of Orthodox theology. It's an example of the "Western Captivity" of Orthodox theology that held sway for quite some time until the "patristic revival" of the 20th century. The Council of Jerusalem represents a fairly successful attempt by the RC's to get the Orthodox "on their side" as much as possible against Protestants.

I find it hard to accept that 20th century "Patristic revivalists" understand things better than a Holy Council of the Orthodox Church! Truths that were hidden from all until Florovsky found the mystic Rosetta Stone and cracked the code, I suppose.... Western influence existed in those times just like it was Western influences that allowed the Patristic revival--the Church expresses itself in the cultural context it finds itself in.

I generally have not spent a lot of time with what Protestants believe on the Eucharist, but I did look up "consubstantiation" and it is not compatible with the view above from St. Cyril of Jerusalm. Where Cyril says "appearance of bread", Lutherans said, "it's still bread," which is an attitude that has been compared to Nestorianism. "What part of these gifts is not Jesus Christ?" There doesn't seem to be a common Anglican belief on what happens, but they do like the phrease "real presence." I'm curious what ARCIC came up with a couple of years ago. For old thread fun on the two terms...

...and I appreciate your understanding of the problems of consubstantiation, John. Definitely, the theology of consubstantiation is incompatible with the words of st. Cyril, and the accusation of nestorianism is also correct. Now, anyway, I'm afraid somebody will see some form of docetism in transubstantiation, as it happens with all these limited expressions we can use to grasp the mysteries of God. We are indeed very restricted in our created and fallen minds!

In Christ, Alex

Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")

"The Council of Jerusalem has not had much staying power among the Orthodox, as its statements represent Latinization of Orthodox theology. It's an example of the "Western Captivity" of Orthodox theology that held sway for quite some time until the "patristic revival" of the 20th century. The Council of Jerusalem represents a fairly successful attempt by the RC's to get the Orthodox "on their side" as much as possible against Protestants.

I find it hard to accept that 20th century "Patristic revivalists" understand things better than a Holy Council of the Orthodox Church! Truths that were hidden from all until Florovsky found the mystic Rosetta Stone and cracked the code, I suppose.... Western influence existed in those times just like it was Western influences that allowed the Patristic revival--the Church expresses itself in the cultural context it finds itself in.

This is one area that I find rather confusing. On another thread someone quoted Met. Kallistos as saying: "Orthodox have never held (as Augustine and many others in the west have done) that unbaptized babies, because tainted with original guilt, are consigned by the just God to the everlasting flames of hell." (The Orthodox Church, p. 224 -- I'm using the 1993 edition of this book) In a footnote given at the end of this statement we find, in part, the words: "It should be noted that an Augustinian view of the fall is found from time to time on the Orthodoxy theological literature; but this is usually the result of western influence. The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila is, as one might expect, strongly Augustinian; on the other hand the Confession of Dosithues is free from Augustinianism" (The Orthodox Church, footnote 2, page 224) What's more, Met. Kallistos calls the The Confession of Dositheus one of "the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787" (The Orthodox Church, p. 203)

But some of this seems incorrect to me. The Confession of Dositheus, for all that it gets right, also gets some things wrong, and seems to be influenced by western thinking, at least in part. So, first, unbaptized infants are said by the Confession to go to eternal punishment (Decree 16). I've seen some Orthodox express agnostic views on this, and some express the view that such infants go to heaven, but I've not really come across much that says they are condemned and go to hell. That actually seems very unorthodox to me.

Second, the Confession of Dositheus seems to support the idea of some type of purgatorial state in the afterlife (Decree 18). Some others seem to agree, at least in part, with this. St. Mark of Ephesus, for all his arguments against the Roman Catholic Church, seems to support some purgation in the afterlife (for example, see here for a sample of what he had to say), as do other Fathers. Yet the standard Orthodox view, so far as I've seen, is that there is no purgatory in the afterlife, end of story.

And third, when the question "Ought the Divine Scriptures to be read in the vulgar tongue by all Christians?" is asked, the Confession says plainly that the answer is no. This is very different than many of the Eastern Christians that I've read. I can remember St. John Chrysostom, for example, rebuking his congregation because they knew all sorts of information about athletes and celebrities, but let their Bibles (or what books they had of the Bible, anyway), collect dust and go unused. Another example, monks who went to Pachomius were given the following rule(s) to be followed:

"Whoever enters the monastery uninstructed shall be taught first what he must observe; and when, so taught, he has consented to it all, they shall give him twenty psalms or two of the Apostle’s epistles, or some other part of the Scripture. And if he is illiterate, he shall go at the first, third, and sixth hours to someone who can teach and has been appointed for him. He shall stand before him and learn very studiously with all gratitude. Then the fundamentals of a syllable, the verbs, and nouns shall be written for him, and even if he does not want to, he shall be compelled to read. There shall be no one whatever in the monastery who does not learn to read and does not memorize something of the Scriptures. (One should learn by heart) at least the New Testament and the Psalter."

So far from keeping the Scripture out of the hands of the majority of the Church, many early Eastern Fathers I've read encouraged their flock to learn the Scriptures, insofar as they were capable.

So, with all due respect, if someone says that unbaptized babies go to heaven or that we don't konw, or that there is no purgatory, or that all Christians ought to read the Bible, then I would agree with that person and disagree with the The Confession of Dositheus, which it is my understanding was officially accepted by Synod Of Jerusalem (1672). I don't think that "Florovsky found the mystic Rosetta Stone and cracked the code". But he, and others like him, may have gotten some things right that a Council got wrong. It's possible. Whether that's true in the main case being discussed here, I don't know.